Decision 18065

Case Number Claimant Judge Language Decision date
Decision 18065   Teitelbaum  English 1990-05-29
Decision Appealed Appellant Corresponding Case
Dismissed  No N/A  -


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
week of unemployment  rationale 

Summary:

I have stated on numerous occasions, UI is not to be used to subsidize a claimant who carries on business for himself or is endeavouring to start a business of his own. The fact that he does not earn profits or take out any profits from the business does not entitle him to UI.


Issue: Sub-Issue 1: Sub-Issue 2: Sub-Issue 3:
availability for work  applicability  proof 

Summary:

The entitlement to benefit does not, alone, depend on the fact that one is available for work but rather on proving it. The proof of availability rests upon the claimant and a mere statement by the claimant standing alone (or with one job application) is insufficient.


Date modified: